A widow who contracted lung cancer following years spent washing her husband’s asbestos-caked clothing has won more than £700,000 in damages.

Monica Haxton, 66, a mother of four and grandmother of eight, cared for her husband Ronald as he died from mesothelioma, an incurable lung cancer associated with asbestos, caused by his years spent working as an electrician for Philips Electronics UK Ltd in Guildford.

However just two years after his death in 2009, she began to suffer the same telltale symptoms of acute breathlessness. A diagnosis of the same illness was confirmed in January 2012.

Her husband, who worked for Philips for more than 40 years, had been exposed to the lethal asbestos over decades spent dismantling boilers and other equipment at the company’s factory in Balham, south London.

Mrs Haxton’s exposure occurred because the couple lacked a washing machine, meaning she would shake his clothes out to remove the dust before washing them by hand in a sink.

Mrs Haxton, who worked as a ward clerk in St Anthonys Hospital, Cheam, had her normal 23-year life expectancy "drastically curtailed" by the illness, London’s Appeal Court heard. Medics had told her last February that she had six to 12 months to live.

Lord Justice Elias said: “In fact, happily, she is still alive.”

Having settled a claim related to her husband’s death for £195,000, Philips agreed that Mrs Haxton was entitled to £310,000 to compensate for her own illness. However her lawyers sought £200,000 more as her own shortened life expectancy had robbed her of the chance of winning damages for 23 years of "loss of dependency" on her husband.

Last year the High Court agreed with Philips’ argument that Mrs Haxton would suffer "no loss" after her own death and that her own dependency claim should be reduced to just 0.7 years.

'Fight for justice'

However three appeal court judges overturned the decision on January 23, awarding the additional £200,000.

Lord Justice Elias said there was "no policy or principle" why Mrs Haxton should be denied full compensation, concluding that a shortening of her life expectancy should have no impact on her damages claim.

Ruling that wrong-doers "must take their victims as they find them", he said: “It must have been foreseeable to Philips that Mrs Haxton would have dependency rights which would be diminished as a result of their negligence.”

Mrs Haxton said: “Ronald and I were married for 45 years and he worked there for 42 years but the negligence of that company by failing to protect us from asbestos exposure has ruined both our lives.

“We were absolutely devastated by Ronald’s diagnosis and I cared for him until his final breath so I know the pain and horror that this terrible disease causes and that I am now suffering.

“It’s also incredibly hard for my children knowing that they are going to have to watch me deteriorate over the coming months.

“I was determined to fight for justice to the end because neither Ronald nor I had any control over contracting this horrendous disease.

“His employers had a duty to warn Ronald of the dangers of asbestos exposure and provide him with protective clothing but they failed to do either.

“I am now relieved and have peace of mind that my children and grandchildren will have financial stability after I am gone and I can now concentrate fully on my family and make the most of the time I have left with them.

“I now finally feel that justice has been done.”

'Tragic case'

Nicola Maier, of law firm Irwin Mtchell, said: “This landmark ruling is a restoration of justice for victims of injury and illness.

“If this appeal had failed we would have had a system whereby a company was effectively benefiting from negligently exposing Monica to the Asbestos which caused her fatal cancer.

“This is an absolutely tragic case and fully demonstrates the devastating consequences exposure to asbestos can have on the wider family. It does not just affect industrial workers.

“Monica is undergoing chemotherapy treatment and knows she will need a significant amount of care as her condition deteriorates but the insurers refused to acknowledge this and agree a fair settlement.

“They were using the consequences of the company’s own negligence as a reason to try to reduce Monica’s settlement which is deeply unfair and thankfully common sense has prevailed.

“The tragic circumstances of the case are rare but the fact remains that Monica is entitled to a full settlement regardless of her life expectancy as Ronald’s former employers were at fault and negligent in their working conditions which ultimately caused both her husband and Monica herself to suffer mesothelioma.”

She added: “It is worth remembering that this is the latest in a long line of legal challenges that asbestos victims have faced in recent years.